LW Psychosis
4Gurkenglas
1Annabelle
3Gurkenglas
3the gears to ascension
1Annabelle
3the gears to ascension
2Annabelle
1Annabelle
New Comment
Advice well taken! Yeah, I only recently learned about Kimi K2 through this site. Happy for the opportunity to learn from everyone here.
May I ask why one shouldn’t delete the last copy of a chat history? I was doing so to avoid increasingly tailored (and thus decreasingly detectable) sycophancy due to memory accumulation (as some platforms like Perplexity have claimed not to form memory from deleted/incognito chats). I’m increasingly skeptical this is true though, and to be fair, may be misremembering this claim entirely.
shaping the AI's behavior towards you makes much more sense than intrinsically wanting the information to not exist. i'd advise you to keep a backup just like i'd advise people to not burn libraries and to install keyloggers. data is overdeterminedly going to come in handy in the future.
1I feel like some of the things that are said to have happened in this story were meant to be more obvious to the reader than I find them to be, but I get the impression this is about people getting obsessive about lesswrong after discovering the site? Which does seem like a thing I've seen happen, even going back 10 years or more. there sure are some Posts on this Web Site.
Hi, thanks for reading!
I get the impression this is about people getting obsessive about lesswrong after discovering the site
That is one object-level interpretation. I wrote this with many different plausible interpretations in mind and would characterize the main takeaway(s) differently, but that doesn’t mean my understanding of the text is necessarily better. I believe this piece of writing is useful to the extent that it makes people critically consider what it means—of course, since everyone has different mental models, the utility of the story will differ from person to person.
Seems hard for it to mean something if you didn't intend it to mean something though? I've always found it odd when someone makes something then says they don't understand it, this isn't unique to this instance - I understand being intentionally vague in a story, but like. What I'm getting at is like - can you clarify anything about this? Or, can you say something about why someone would understand something better from this sequence of events? Or, is this a caricature of real events? Or something like that. I want to know what you're trying to say, not what I misread it as, and unlike some intentionally vague stories, I feel like I've understood less than I want to, and I'd like more author clarification about what happened between events in this imaginary world, I guess?
Seems hard for it to mean something if you didn't intend it to mean something though? I've always found it odd when someone makes something then says they don't understand it, this isn't unique to this instance
I think my position is different than this--I believe both that (1) an author can (and does) intend writing to mean something, and (2) an author's intent in writing a text does not fix the meaning of that text (but an explanation does, which is thus limiting). For an overview of this argument, see here; for primary sources, see here or here. I think this is almost necessarily the framework one has to take reading James Joyce or David Foster Wallace, for example.
I intended not to explain this story for the reasoning described in the linked texts, but whatever; I'm a Bad Post-Structuralist so I'll update and provide an interpretation I see as important:
We need to understand that all systems of understanding the world--including pure math--are exactly that: epistemological frameworks. Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the Münchhausen trilemma both imply that we can't really "prove" epistemological frameworks--that is, ground them in a provably objective territory--meaning they are proxies. I think that reminding ourselves of this is increasingly important as frameworks we constructed as imperfect proxies for understanding our experiences become increasingly and dogmatically accepted as Real outside of their systems (lest we reify the simulacra--see primary source argument here, which directly addresses the map-territory distinction). Remembering this is also particularly important if such frameworks are being used to justify actions that counter our common-sense intuitions about "rightness" and "wrongness," I think (acknowledging that this argument is based on my own chosen and fundamentally unjustifiable values).
Of course, this entails accepting infinite regress/uncertainty about everything--including this argument--which is hard and inconvenient.
Some even higher-order implications I see in this are that (a) desire (for control, to be controlled; for understanding, to be understood) is the root of all suffering and (b) compassion for all beings without exception (i.e., including ourselves) is important (under my value framework), but I think explaining how I see that as implied might require its own post (and I'm doubtful about how that would be received here, as it itself hinges on a post-structuralist framework which requires dialectical reasoning to reconcile with rationalism).
I have other interpretations/implications I find salient but I'll stop there. I hope this provides some clarity/insight and thank you for your interest :-)
Hey! I reread this comment exchange and wanted to update my response. The crux of what I wanted to convey was that I value creative intellectual play and hold the belief that telling others what I see in my own creative writing might limit that (because I want people to make their own meaning without unnecessary bias from my perspective). I am now realizing my responses may have felt dismissive and/or counterproductive, and I regret that. If you're still interested, please feel free to shoot me a message and I'm happy to discuss/share more privately :)
1